Former Secretary and Chief Election Commissioner Bhojraj Pokharel has had the opportunity to closely observe the electoral process of many countries first-hand: the US, Bangladesh and South Sudan, among other countries, and most recently the general election in Myanmar where Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy emerged triumphant.
Related story
Two kids die from snake bite
Pokharel has also at various times been closely involved with the Nepali constitutional process. Biswas Baral and Mahabir Paudyal caught up with Pokharel at his Thapathali residence on Wednesday for his insights into our electoral system, the current constitutional crisis and the Indian economic embargo.
What was your impression of the electoral system in Myanmar? How similar is it to ours?Electoral system of every country is guided by local context. We in Nepal had for a long time been practicing the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. In post-conflict period, we identified lack of inclusivity as the cause of conflict and tried to reform the system. The new system partly addressed the problem. But our leadership failed to properly manage it.
Myanmar has also adopted the FPTP system. Like Nepal, Myanmar has many ethnic groups; around 135. There too power is concentrated in the hands of the people in the capital. Issues of power sharing, inclusivity and autonomy have caused multiple conflicts there. A need was felt for reform of its electoral system, but it couldn't happen. But even without these reforms, in the recent general election, 70 percent seats in both houses of parliament have gone to Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy.
A number of ethnic parties had contested the polls in Myanmar this time but very few managed to get into the national parliament. This has led to a debate on electoral system reform in Myanmar as the old system, some feel, can't accommodate the country's diverse ethnic mosaic. In this respect, our electoral system could be called better than Myanmar's. But that said electoral system and its outcomes are less important than how political leadership manages the country's diversity.
Do you imply that the new constitution in Nepal, which has the support of over 85 percent of lawmakers, is somehow deficient?
There are problems everywhere. It depends on how the political leadership handles them. Yes, it is true that more than 85 percent lawmakers endorsed the new constitution. But the moot point is whether there was enough debate within our political parties over accommodation of Nepal's vast diversity. If the leadership had initiated discussions inside their party and tried to accommodate dissenting voices, the new constitution would have gained wider acceptance. The same rank and file would then defend the constitution. But I believe our leaders have failed to accommodate this diversity.
You say there weren't enough discussions. But that is what we had been doing for the eight years since the first CA polls in 2008.
Not really. I had held a number of discussions with various ethnic groups within major parties after the first CA elections. All of them said that had they been consulted things would have been different. They complained that the leadership tried to impose readymade decisions on them; that there was no wide discussion on disputed issues within their parties. This tendency was pervasive. So our political leadership needs to change this top-down decision-making process.
Can the current blockade also be seen as a failure of our political leadership?
In a way, yes. They failed to foresee this situation. I had suggested to the political leadership not to take the Madhesh issue lightly. I had personally told top leaders a week before promulgation of the new constitution that things could go out of their hands if they brought the constitution without first addressing the Madhesh issue. I had told them that such a constitution would be tough to implement. But our leaders seemed to be in haste. They seemed less concerned about the post-constitution scenario. Our leaders, it seems, are yet to acknowledge that there are problems in the country and they need to be resolved.
But many demands of Madheshi parties have been addressed in the new constitution. What is it that, in your view, Madheshi people really want?
The way I see it, Madheshi people have grievances against the new constitution. But over the past few months this disagreement has led to a clash of perception. Madheshis think Kathmandu ignored them during the constitution process. This feeling deepened especially after top leaders agreed to address the demand of Rukum and Baglung protestors, but similar demands in Madhesh were ignored. Madheshis feel they have not been taken seriously even after three months of agitation. Madheshis feel they are thought of as Indians and not as genuine Nepali citizens. They feel that Kathmandu's mindset about Madhehsis has not changed.
So you don't believe the new constitution adequately addresses concerns of Madheshi people?
If you ask me, our constitution is one of the most progressive in the world. Whether we will be able to implement it is another matter. But the political leadership failed to communicate its good aspects to the people. Madheshis feel there is nothing in the constitution for them. Today, this perception is widespread among Madheshis, which also accounts for their large participation in the ongoing agitation. Madheshi analysts say that Madheshis are trying to be close to Kathmandu but Kathmandu is pushing them away.
A Nepali of Indian origin from Darjeeling is easily accepted as a Nepali. He will be treated well because he wears dhaka topi and speaks Nepali language. But a Madheshi Nepali is thought of as an Indian. A group of people is agitating saying they are fighting against historic discrimination. Another group says you are creating problems with India's backing.
Nepalipan is still defined in terms of Pahadi sensibilities. Everything related to Madheshis is immediately connected with India. This perception gap needs to be narrowed down. A meeting point must be found.
You were an observer in the referendum for the creation of South Sudan in 2011. What is your reading of the global movements for independence, for instance in the UK recently?
With few exceptions, the fight for rights has always prevailed. But there are also examples of states successfully managing their diversity and keeping their country intact. Only those countries which have failed to manage diversity have disintegrated. South Sudan is different to North Sudan in terms of language, culture and religion. So it sought autonomy within Sudan. But Sudan was not interested. Then South Sudan demanded a separate state.
The point is, when the state fails to accommodate diversity and alienates a large section of its population, secessionist sentiments gain traction. However, education and economic prosperity can prevent disintegration. Once these vital needs are met, issues of identity and ethnicity become secondary. The lesson is that we must acknowledge diversity and manage it in a way acceptable to all. If we can maintain over 10 percent growth for the next 20 years, we will become prosperous. Then ethnic ideals will hold little water. Therefore our emphasis should be to promptly end the demarcation dispute and focus on economic development.
Do you see parallels between Sudan's secession and occasional calls for secession in Madhesh?
Like I said, the context is different. South Sudan lagged far behind mainland Sudan in development, literacy, roads, virtually everything. The level of discrimination against South Sudanese was extremely high. Madhesh cannot be compared to South Sudan. While interacting with South Sudanese leaders, they would say they would be happy as citizens of larger Sudan instead of being citizens of a smaller entity. People rarely opt for secession.
In my interaction with Madheshi leaders I have found that they are against secession. At least sensitive Madheshi leaders are against it. Secession is not as easy in Nepal as it was in Sudan. Madheshi leaders are seeking solutions from within the framework of the new constitution. It is when they start seeking extra-constitutional rights that there will be problems. This is something we should all be cognizant about.
Finally, what is your take on the current blockade?
This blockade can be seen as a failure of Indian diplomacy. Misunderstanding between leaderships of two countries has subjected us to untold suffering. Don't forget, a large number of Indians are against this blockade. But it still continues. India has found an excuse in Madhesh to justify its blockade. So we need to first put our house in order. Then India will be compelled to lift the blockade. It is all the more important to end the Madhesh crisis for this reason. We have suffered blockades in the past as well. During such times issues of self-reliance and need to minimize overdependence on India enter national debate. But we tend to forget easily. Nepal cannot change its geography. We can minimize our over-dependence on India but we cannot look for its alternative elsewhere. Perhaps aware of this vulnerability, India has decided to act tough with Nepal.
